On Thu, 10 May 2012 06:37:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 9, 11:34Â*pm, bob haller wrote:
OP should of had full replacement insurance less deductible.. it costs
more than depreciated insurance but can pay back big time on a big
loss like a fire or a home destroyed by a tornado

I'm not sure I see the logic of paying for full replacement
insurance. It would seem to me that you are then playing
the lottery hoping to get lucky by having damage occur
so you can recover the extra money your are paying over
the years.

In this case, the roof was 60% of the way through it's
life anyway. He would have had to replace it when the
other 40% ran out. The insurance company is giving
him credit for way more than the 40% of remaining
value, making him whole and then some.

And if you don't have a claim on that roof, then over
25 years you've paid significantly more for full
replacement coverage that you never used. It
would be like paying extra for auto collision
insurance where if your ten year old car gets
wrecked, instead of giving you $3,000 they
give you the value of a new car.
Depends where you live and what your risks are. If you are in
tornado alley, or in a heavy hail zone, buying replacement insurence
may well be a wise move. Then again, if you live in some parts of
Florida it may be a total waste, because roofs might never last long
enough to be depreciated.